Month: October 2001

Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security – policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Before the terrorist attacks on the U.S., environmental groups were often critical of the Bush Administration’s policies. But, since September 11th, most of the environmental organizations have erased all traces of criticism of the White House. Some politicians, though, see opportunities to push through energy policies in the name of national security, policies that could damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.

If you’d visited the Sierra Club Internet web site before September eleventh, or that of the Natural Resources Defense Council, or any of a dozen or more major environmental groups’ sites, you likely would have seen sometimes harsh criticism of the Bush Administration’s energy policies, environmental policies, and a host of other complaints the groups had against the White House. Some environmental groups were also running TV ads attacking the Bush Administration’s policies. But, after the terrorist attacks, the ads were pulled and many of the environmental groups removed those criticisms from their web sites in the name of national unity.

Joe Davis is editor of a tip sheet compiled for environmental journalists. He’s watched as most environmental groups have stifled their criticism since the attacks.

“I think everybody’s waiting just to see, you know, what’s going to happen in the next few days and weeks. And, of course, environmental groups are, for the most part, as patriotic as everybody else and people do understand that national unity is important.”

Some journalists have questioned whether the environmental groups are backing down from their positions or merely lying low for a little while. The environmental groups aren’t saying much. But behind the scenes, there’s concern that environmental protection will get trampled in the name of national security.

Meanwhile, some politicians have seen opportunities in the wake of the tragedy. Immediately after the attacks, the Alaska congressional delegation began pushing harder for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The members said such drilling would reduce America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East. They were admonished, though, for being opportunists in the wake of tragedy. The Alaska politicians quickly backed off and took the fight for drilling behind the scenes.

Outside of Washington, it’s a different story. Some state politicians have become even more vocal in their support of oil and gas exploration. Just before the terrorist attacks, Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission lifted a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas under the Great Lakes. The Michigan Legislature could still step in to block any such drilling. But some of the lawmakers say because of the terrorist attacks, Michigan should drill. Dale Shugars is a Republican State Senator who supports drilling under the lakes.

_____________
“With the sustained war that we’re going to be going into, I think it’s very important from a national security point of view that the country be more independent for oil and gas.”

Environmentalists in Michigan are appalled that Senator Shugars and some of their colleagues are taking that tact. James Clift is the policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. He says the reserves under the lakes are so miniscule they’ll have next to no effect on the nation’s energy security and using the terrorist attacks to justify drilling under the Great Lakes is wrong.

“We do not believe that the unfortunate incident of the terrorist attack has changed anything as far as energy policy in the United States. The same conditions that applied before apply afterwards. And, even more so, I believe, is the importance for energy conservation. The United States only has four percent of the world’s reserves of oil and gas. Using those reserves up faster isn’t going to make the United States any more secure.”

But Senator Shugars thinks it is naïve to believe using less fuel will be enough. He says now that we’re at war with terrorists, it’s important to drill for fuel for the military and needs at home.

“It’s a fact that we’re going to be having a war against terrorism for a long time and I think that if one is going to look at a national energy policy, it has to include increasing supply and definitely – definitely has to be environmentally sensitive.”

Senator Shugars and others using the terrorist attacks to justify the energy and environmental policies that they want might be walking a tight rope. History shows Americans tend to frown on opportunism during times of national crisis. Environmental journalist Joe Davis says if politicians and energy industry leaders do use that approach, it could backfire. Especially since environmental groups are being quiet for the sake of a united patriotic front.

“Any party who tries to make short-term advantage out of a national crisis like this, I think, is very quickly going to be perceived as being exactly what it is: opportunistic. I don’t think the environmentalists will lay low forever and I don’t think they’re alone in questioning these things.”

But for now, most of the environmentalists are not saying much – at least publicly – about their opposition to the government’s energy and environmental policies. At least not until the nation begins to get past the shock of the terrorist attacks on the U.S.

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded. Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ income. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:

Transcript

This fall, Congress is expected to debate how much to spend on a new farm bill, and there may be sharp disagreement over what programs should be funded.
Traditionally, the money has been used to supplement farmers’ incomes. But now, environmental groups are increasingly demanding, and getting more money for conservation programs. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports that many farmers are concerned
about organizations with no agricultural background shaping farm policy:

As the fall harvest winds down, Ken Lougheed has more time to catch up on the farm bill debate. He’s not happy about the possibility of more government imposed conservation programs.

“Farmers have been very good stewards of the land for years. We have to live in the same communities, we have to drink the same water, breathe the same air. We’re probably more aware of what’s going on than a lot of environmental groups are.”

Lougheed farms several hundred acres on the Minnesota North Dakota border near Fargo. He says he’s seen what happens when environmentalists help write farm legislation. He points to a wetland protection program known as “Swampbuster” as an example of well-intentioned but intrusive government. Lougheed says a bureaucrat who’s never set foot on his farm decides where wetlands are located. And with that decision, parts of his land are taken away from farming. Lougheed says that makes him feel helpless, and angry.

“We need to have more common sense in these issues. Because it’s nonsense, there’s no common sense involved in it and we need to have more common sense.”

Lougheed says he’s never actually talked to an environmentalist, but he’d welcome the chance to seek common ground on conservation issues. But if the current farm bill discussion is any indication, that common ground may be difficult to find. Environmental groups want to shift funding from traditional farm commodity programs to conservation. Most farm groups staunchly oppose that idea, arguing new conservation initiatives should have new funding. There’s also disagreement over which conservation programs to fund. The House favors expanding the Conservation Reserve Program that pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production. But in the Senate, Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin of Iowa is pushing the Conservation Security Act. That legislation would pay farmers to incorporate as yet undefined stewardship practices into their farm operation. Farmers fear that would, as one put it, let the environmentalists run the farm. Minnesota Seventh District Congressman, Collin Peterson, sits on the House Ag Committee and knows the middle ground on this issue can be hazardous. He’s been criticized by some of his farm constituents for voting in favor of expanded conservation programs, and painted as anti-environment by some environmental groups.

“You get those two groups on the extremes, in a lot of cases clashing, and the people in the middle are just keeping their heads down.”

Peterson says the fear some farmers have of environmentalists is well founded. He says environmental groups have a variety of political viewpoints, ranging from moderate to extreme; but he believes most have little real understanding of agriculture.

“They sit in their ivory tower and say, well, you guys are getting all that money. We’re paying you all that money, then we’re gonna have our way. The biggest problem is these groups are based in the urban areas. It’s not their fault, they just don’t understand. ”

But Peterson says farm interests must learn to compromise with environmentalists. That’s because farm state lawmakers no longer have the political clout to pass a farm bill without votes from urban members. And those urban members often represent environmental positions. But Peterson says, like abortion and gun control, environmental discussions often can’t get past ideology.

“The problem I have is you’re not even debating what the real issue is. They’re out there on their ideological extremes and they’re raising money and getting people stirred up and we never have the debate about the middle where we could get something done and make things better for people.”

At least some farm organizations say they are willing to compromise.
Minnesota Farm Bureau President Al Christopherson says it’s clear the days of farm groups writing the farm bill are over. They need support from environmental interests to pass legislation. But he says most farmers would be happy just to have Congress decide on conservation priorities and stick to them.

“Farmers have a very difficult time adapting to them if A; they’re not understood, B; they don’t make sense, and C; there’s a whole lot of shouting in the wings about what we ought to be doing.”

Christopherson says the cacophony will only get louder and the confusion greater as a dwindling farm population continues to lose political clout in Washington, and other interests vie for a piece of the agriculture budget.

Although it has been delayed by the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congressional debate is still scheduled to begin this fall on legislation that will shape the nation’s farm policy for the next 5 to 10 years. Right now, the vast majority of subsidies go to farmers who grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans. That leaves out many small dairy and vegetable farmers throughout the Midwest. Environmentalists say a shift in farm program priorities would help those farmers and be a boon to the environment. In the first of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Losure visits a place that’s considered to be a success story in the nation’s conservation reserve program:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/10/losure.mp3

Transcript

Although it has been delayed by the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congressional debate is still scheduled to begin this fall on legislation that will shape the nation’s farm policy for the next 5 to 10 years. Right now, the vast majority of subsidies go to farmers who grow commodity crops like corn and soybeans. That leaves out many small dairy and vegetable farmers throughout the Midwest. Environmentalists say a shift in farm program priorities would help those farmers and be a boon to the environment. In the first of a two-part
series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Losure visits a place that’s considered to be a success story in the nation’s conservation reserve program:

When cattle buyer Del Wehrspann was growing up on an Iowa farm in the 1950’s and 60’s, he saw the floodplain of the Des Moines River plowed up and planted in crops. Wehrspann is a lifelong conservationist and avid fisherman. He watched, dismayed, as the rivers fish and wildlife languished. So in 1968 he moved north to the Minnesota River valley, where the bottomland was still unplowed.

“But then we lived here not very long and I seen the exact same things taking place that had taken place in Iowa for me when I was a boy. That was draining every last wetland, tearing out every last fence, plowing everything that could be plowed for agricultural production.”

But these days as Wehrspann drives along the Minnesota River, he sees something he never expected in his lifetime – the river’s bottomland is being restored. It’s happening because Wehrspann and other citizens in the valley helped convince the state and federal government to begin what’s known as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The program pays farmers an annual fee to take environmentally sensitive land out of cultivation. Now cattails, willows, and young cottonwoods grow on bottomland that just a few years ago was rows of corn and soybeans.

(sound of pontoon boat)

Already, Wehrspann has noticed changes on the river, where he often fishes from his pontoon boat. This spring when he floated past a field his neighbor has restored to a cattail marsh, the water running into the river was clear, not muddy with soil washing off a plowed field.

“This spring, the walleyes, they spawned. There was quite a few of them, the fish were here, nice fish. And for years, the Department of Natural Resources told us that we couldn’t have production, natural walleye production in this area because the water was too dirty.”

At a bend in the river, he beaches the boat and walks through land that was once diked and drained and is now a wetland. The mud is littered with freshwater mussel shells and crisscrossed with animal tracks.

“Like I say, this land is in production. It may not be in agricultural production, but as far as the deer, the other wildlife, the water quality, the aesthetics, it’s producing something. (Killdeer cry) that’s a killdeer.”

Under conservation programs similar to the one in the Minnesota River Valley, farmers nationwide have retired more than 33 million acres of environmentally sensitive land since 1985.

A farm bill amendment sponsored by Representatives Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Sherry Boehlert of New York and others would substantially increase spending for such programs to more than one quarter of the farm bill’s budget.

It’s not clear how well such proposals will fare…. but Tim Searchinger, senior attorney for the Washington DC based Environmental Defense, believes the time is right for a shift.

“It’s become increasingly obvious to people that these traditional farm programs leave out a large number of farmers. Nationwide, two-thirds of all the farmers don’t get any farm payments, and of the payments that are provided, two-thirds goes to the top largest ten percent.”

Searchinger says members of Congress from states like Wisconsin and New York where farmers receive relatively little in farm subsidies are starting to wake up to the inequities – especially as farm bill spending balloons.

He says congressmen from those states are increasingly supporting conservation programs. And in a recent boost for conservationists, a new report by the Bush administration proposes a similar shift from transitional subsidies to conservation programs.